Reaper, REAPER | Audio Production Without Limits, which is a very sophisticated and powerful package is available to download, to assess for purchase. The effects allow for very fine tuning of the parameters for compression, and decompression - just playing with the settings in a single module, in a single operation, will do a great deal of the work - I found it very satisfying to play with ...
That is good to hear/know. If a compressed track(s)can be fixed, I can re-record it and use that for my listening with greater pleasure (non automobile or iPOD use).
I recently got Cubase, Pro Tools and Sonar. I'll add this one to the short list of DIY DAW tools.
THx-RNMarsh
After all this work, did you save the end result so that you can share it with us?
This was done a couple of years ago, I should still have the after - I'll try and track it down, and post it ... the before is this, Thirsty Merc - In The Summertime - YouTube - note, I haven't checked whether this matches the version I used as my starting point
You are jumping to conclusions. An opamp does not do anything to a signal; it is the binary combination (opamp, circuit) which does things to a signal. If the test equipment designer is smarter than the audio equipment designer (or maybe is just able to read and understand a datasheet) then the same opamp may be used in both and still get sensible results.john curl said:
Why do people still adhere to the childish idea that "this opamp/component good; that one bad"? That is how fashion engineering works; it shouldn't be how genuine engineering works.
Any Opamp Is A Circuit In Itself....
Opamp 1/f noise level and 1/f noise turnover points vary....this is important, perhaps more than is generally realised.
Genuine engineering should include all factors, and to the n'th degree.....in general practice it does not.
Dan.
Opamp 1/f noise level and 1/f noise turnover points vary....this is important, perhaps more than is generally realised.
Genuine engineering should include all factors, and to the n'th degree.....in general practice it does not.
Dan.
Becuase SOME (not all) components do have a distinctive sound. You are right in assuming that with enough work and research, ANY component could eventually be made to come on song, but that's not how the real world works.
Case in point - BB's 2xxx JFET family of op amps. To me, they are shrieky, it has come to the pont where in most instanced I can hear their presence, not always, but say 8 of 10 times.
And I am refuted by my own NAD C 565 BEE CD player. It's full of them, but they do not shriek at me as I expect them to, rather they do a very good job in it.
I haven't gotten hold of its schematics yet, so I can't look and see if they have done anything out of the ordinary with them, but they do sound just right.
THIS I think is the point - factory designers want unfussy components, those they can just thro win and which will work stisfactorily for their purposes. A few will do their homeowkr and wreak out some better than usual sound, on occasion, here or there. "Good" and "bad" I think really applies much more to their ease of use than what can be had from them with some additional effort.
Not sure that I agree.
Even with ideal supplies and earthing arrangements, opamps that spec similarly good can still sound subtly fundamentally different.
Same model opamps that meet same spec, but from different manufacturers can sound subtly/fundamentally different.
I went to the Dynaudio factory a couple of decades ago....there is a reason that their drivers sound as they do
.Dan.
So, a quick summary:
Ed stated:
A loudspeaker's rated impedance is twice the minimum impedance.
so I asked:
Then, when pushed by George, Ed eventually admitted:
So, my question is still "nonsense"??
Ed also stated this:
The answer is yes, and in ways you would not understand without detailed explanation, using both passive and active loading circuitry. And, many amps double down with no problem. Some do it twice. Others have also performed this test.
And, the supply doesn't have to be regulated to achieve this. Regulation allows operation closer to rails, SMPS supplies can hold the rails much better than small cap banks.
It also depends on what is defined as maximum power. Rated, clipping, 1%...
So again, where is the nonsense??
Ed, the only "issue I have with you is rigor. You occasionally make statements which are poorly researched, or poorly understood, and sometimes just poorly written. You blindly attack when errors have been pointed out.
There is nothing wrong with reaching beyond current understandings, I always admire that.
But I request you tighten it up academically, and back off the soapbox.
And stop the nonsense.
jn
ps..darnit, I was trying to post the active amp test circuit block diagram I used to test amps, it's not in this computer. I'll find it later and post it if anybody's interested.
AHA! found it...
The basic theory is this: by inverting the signal to the control load amp, you can adjust where the zero voltage of the load is. If the signal is zero, the amp sees the load directly. If the signal is equal and opposite, the test amp sees half the load impedance, the center of the load is forced to zero. If the signal is equal and same sine, the test amp sees no current draw, or infinite load impedance.
The same applies with the cosine fed to the control load. The cosine signal causes the control amp to draw or force current from the test amp, so is useable to vary the load phase shift plus or minus 90 degrees.
This can be used easily for single tone testing, basic bog stuff... Or, you can drive hard LF into the load, then inject a lower level hf signal to see what the amp does to the hf signal in all four quadrants of test amp operation. Remember, if the load is a pure resistance, a two tone test such as this will remain in quadrants 1 and 3, whereas the LF inductive load forces operation in all 4 quadrants.
Exercising an amp this way is more consistent with how we use them in the field..
Edit: I sent this to Jon Risch back in march 2007, but do not know if it was adopted at Peavey.
jn
Ed stated:
A loudspeaker's rated impedance is twice the minimum impedance.
so I asked:
The intellectual response?
Then, when pushed by George, Ed eventually admitted:
So, my question is still "nonsense"??
Ed also stated this:
The answer is yes, and in ways you would not understand without detailed explanation, using both passive and active loading circuitry. And, many amps double down with no problem. Some do it twice. Others have also performed this test.
And, the supply doesn't have to be regulated to achieve this. Regulation allows operation closer to rails, SMPS supplies can hold the rails much better than small cap banks.
It also depends on what is defined as maximum power. Rated, clipping, 1%...
So again, where is the nonsense??
Ed, the only "issue I have with you is rigor. You occasionally make statements which are poorly researched, or poorly understood, and sometimes just poorly written. You blindly attack when errors have been pointed out.
There is nothing wrong with reaching beyond current understandings, I always admire that.
But I request you tighten it up academically, and back off the soapbox.
And stop the nonsense.
jn
ps..darnit, I was trying to post the active amp test circuit block diagram I used to test amps, it's not in this computer. I'll find it later and post it if anybody's interested.
AHA! found it...
The basic theory is this: by inverting the signal to the control load amp, you can adjust where the zero voltage of the load is. If the signal is zero, the amp sees the load directly. If the signal is equal and opposite, the test amp sees half the load impedance, the center of the load is forced to zero. If the signal is equal and same sine, the test amp sees no current draw, or infinite load impedance.
The same applies with the cosine fed to the control load. The cosine signal causes the control amp to draw or force current from the test amp, so is useable to vary the load phase shift plus or minus 90 degrees.
This can be used easily for single tone testing, basic bog stuff... Or, you can drive hard LF into the load, then inject a lower level hf signal to see what the amp does to the hf signal in all four quadrants of test amp operation. Remember, if the load is a pure resistance, a two tone test such as this will remain in quadrants 1 and 3, whereas the LF inductive load forces operation in all 4 quadrants.
Exercising an amp this way is more consistent with how we use them in the field..
Edit: I sent this to Jon Risch back in march 2007, but do not know if it was adopted at Peavey.
jn
Attachments
![basic amp test diagram[1].jpg](/community/data/attachments/383/383294-ca86f78d1606b2d36c2a45a6adddf8a8.jpg)
Last edited:
Give it a break, DF96, I have been successfully using IC op amps for almost 50 years. Yes, from the very beginning. I had high hopes for them for audio reproduction, but I always found them to not sound as good as discrete. I still find that true with my new designs, as well.
I don't work alone, I have colleagues that do the final circuit layout and grounding, and they are more experienced than me in these areas.
It is relatively easy to get good 'conventional' measurements with high feedback, almost anyone can do it. It is just that the 'result' isn't as musically satisfying as an equivalent discrete design effort. This has been independently verified by independent reviews. For example, the Vendetta SCP-2 and the new, IC based JC-3 phono stage. The Vendetta is still audibly better sounding and more revealing. That is the mystery.
I don't work alone, I have colleagues that do the final circuit layout and grounding, and they are more experienced than me in these areas.
It is relatively easy to get good 'conventional' measurements with high feedback, almost anyone can do it. It is just that the 'result' isn't as musically satisfying as an equivalent discrete design effort. This has been independently verified by independent reviews. For example, the Vendetta SCP-2 and the new, IC based JC-3 phono stage. The Vendetta is still audibly better sounding and more revealing. That is the mystery.
Pretty soon it will be prehistoric times. How many man months would that be? 
Yes JN your question is still nonsense when you post it shortly after a post has addressed the issue.
The DIN standard became the IEC standard. In the 2012 revision of AES2 the IEC version was adopted.
Now the AES2 is if you read it about rating the components, such as woofers, tweeters, compression drivers, etc.
Now if the minimum impedance is the resistance of the voice coil, that is not a useful number for compression drivers, that are efficient enough, they will never drop that low in the normal operating range.
However as many folks were using the standard for complete systems. (and the IEC having a different standard process) the issue was changed.
That is why George found many loudspeaker systems using the 2x minimum.
Now if you also read another post, it is the feedback in an amplifier that allows it to double power until the power supply runs out of current capability. Now if you read a bit on masking, it not only occurs in real time but also pre and post event. So when your power amplifier clips even briefly that is often perceived as a much bigger event.
Also mentioned way back was that in a moderately competent system playing CD's the system should never clip. However those still playing records can often clip there system.
The DIN standard became the IEC standard. In the 2012 revision of AES2 the IEC version was adopted.
Now the AES2 is if you read it about rating the components, such as woofers, tweeters, compression drivers, etc.
Now if the minimum impedance is the resistance of the voice coil, that is not a useful number for compression drivers, that are efficient enough, they will never drop that low in the normal operating range.
However as many folks were using the standard for complete systems. (and the IEC having a different standard process) the issue was changed.
That is why George found many loudspeaker systems using the 2x minimum.
Now if you also read another post, it is the feedback in an amplifier that allows it to double power until the power supply runs out of current capability. Now if you read a bit on masking, it not only occurs in real time but also pre and post event. So when your power amplifier clips even briefly that is often perceived as a much bigger event.
Also mentioned way back was that in a moderately competent system playing CD's the system should never clip. However those still playing records can often clip there system.
You need to review the timeline. Re-writing history to bolster bad behavior is "nonsense". Raise your standards please.
The present year is 2014..
Really?? Go figure... Guess my prof's back in '73 actually did know what they were talking about...
Ed..posting 40 year old understandings as if they are brand new is not teaching.. Acting as if I didn't already know it, that is indeed nonsense..
jn
Last edited:
Respect is earned. Abusing me for a question on his error is not the way to earn respect.
3 million people cannot be wrong! Adding jj seals the deal!
Now you will have to explain that, as it contextually has nothing to do with Ed's error, my question, and his abusive response.
jn
As if there is not a track load of jn stuff to check, there comes a new one (as usual, I don’t understand a word from this but I’ll try again…)
Let's smoke together that long pipe
IEC 60268-5 is much better than AES2-2003. Careful wording and technically rigour (and I liked the spec’d Vas test)
George
JN,
Yes the revised standard was out for comment December 22 2012, So any loudspeaker specified after the comment period closed should conform. (When they do it is often advertised in the specs, as so few do.) However most of the units in use are from before that.
I also strongly suspect you haven't read the AES2 standard.
Gee I read the post that started as power output does not double as impedance halves. That is different than the power delivered to the load. Output power is a usually given specification.
Yes the revised standard was out for comment December 22 2012, So any loudspeaker specified after the comment period closed should conform. (When they do it is often advertised in the specs, as so few do.) However most of the units in use are from before that.
I also strongly suspect you haven't read the AES2 standard.
Gee I read the post that started as power output does not double as impedance halves. That is different than the power delivered to the load. Output power is a usually given specification.
As if there is not a track load of jn stuff to check, there comes a new one (as usual, I don’t understand a word from this but I’ll try again…)
Let's smoke together that long pipe
IEC 60268-5 is much better than AES2-2003. Careful wording and technically rigour (and I liked the spec’d Vas test)
George
George if you read the 2012 AES2 carefully, (page 3) I suspect you will be careful with your comments.
I don't know what you guys are arguing about. Throughout the decades, the NOMINAL speaker impedance is not anywhere near the worst case low impedance measured. Amp designers SHOULD take this into account, and provide enough current drive to almost double the output to 1/2 the specified load impedance. It is true that, in order to save money, most mid-fi manufacturers just design enough extra current in, in order to barely do 4 ohms, but that is not the way a GOOD amp is designed.
Now, what does it cost to get this current built into a power amp? Of course, people will say 'power supply' and they would be partially right, but the second important factor is PROTECTION CIRCUITS that protect a relatively weak output stage from potential breakdown.
Early Crown amps were famous for this, and it was said that a McIntosh tube amp, rated at 1/2 the rated power as a Crown, would sound more effortless, and with less clipping.
Now, what does it take to make a stronger output stage? First, is to use the devices with the most 'safe area' (expensive) that are also fast and complementary. Second, is to parallel parts to increase the effective 'safe area' so that any protection circuitry can be designed to only fire on direct shorts or the near equivalent. This is why Parasound amps that I am associated with, use multiple output pairs, (I use up to 9 pairs) to achieve this.
Now, what does it cost to get this current built into a power amp? Of course, people will say 'power supply' and they would be partially right, but the second important factor is PROTECTION CIRCUITS that protect a relatively weak output stage from potential breakdown.
Early Crown amps were famous for this, and it was said that a McIntosh tube amp, rated at 1/2 the rated power as a Crown, would sound more effortless, and with less clipping.
Now, what does it take to make a stronger output stage? First, is to use the devices with the most 'safe area' (expensive) that are also fast and complementary. Second, is to parallel parts to increase the effective 'safe area' so that any protection circuitry can be designed to only fire on direct shorts or the near equivalent. This is why Parasound amps that I am associated with, use multiple output pairs, (I use up to 9 pairs) to achieve this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.